Doug Finke: Another overtime session?

Doug Finke

Friday

Mar 28, 2008 at 12:01 AMMar 28, 2008 at 5:01 PM

*”We want to win in nine innings. We want to get these things done for people within a nine- inning baseball game, but if we have to play extra innings to do it right for people, I think that’s what we ought to be prepared to do.”

*”We want to win in nine innings. We want to get these things done for people within a nine- inning baseball game, but if we have to play extra innings to do it right for people, I think that’s what we ought to be prepared to do.”

That was Gov. ROD BLAGOJEVICH in Chicago last week talking about the prospects for another overtime session this year. If that line sounds familiar, that’s because it’s the same line he used through most of last year’s overtime session.

It looks like the governor is already prepared to drag the state through another excruciating and ultimately pointless summer of haggling in Springfield. And it isn’t even April.

Time for a relief pitcher.

*When guards at the maximum-security Pontiac Correctional Center weren’t told that a state helicopter was going to be flying into the grounds, the guards’ union was upset, saying a catastrophe could have resulted if the guards thought a prison break was underway.

But the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees has another beef about the incident. Why were Department of Corrections brass and others flying around the state in a helicopter? Wasn’t this the same agency that recently said funds were so tight that vehicles should be repaired only in an emergency?

The union contends the money spent on the helicopter ride could better be spent fixing cars. Corrections argues that site visits are important and that officials visited three far-flung prisons that day, making flying the only practical way to get around.

Or maybe Corrections doesn’t have any working cars left and flying was the only option.

*Among the thousands of bills introduced in the General Assembly the last two years is a little ditty sponsored by Rep. SUSANA MENDOZA, D-Chicago. The short version of House Bill 4716 says that it “prohibits a General Assembly member from sponsoring legislation affecting an industry or State agency for which the member’s relative lobbies.”

It is in response to something that happened a year ago that itself shows the kinds of shenanigans that can go on around the Capitol.

Last spring, Mendoza sponsored a bill she called the “Cell Phone Lemon Law” aimed at cracking down on defective cell phones sold as part of a cell phone service contract. Among other things, it said that if a cell phone breaks down three or more times during the contract period, the user can cancel the contract without penalty.

The idea struck a nerve. No fewer than 28 representatives signed on as co-sponsors. The bill passed the House on a 72-43 vote. Most of the support came from Democrats, although a smattering of Republicans also voted for it. The bill was sent over to the Senate, and that’s when the trouble started.

When a bill passes one chamber (in the case the House), a lawmaker in the other chamber (in this case the Senate) has to sponsor it. When he signs on, it becomes his bill. He can do with it as he pleases. Usually, it’s no big deal because the new sponsor is sympathetic to the issue or is friends with the original sponsor and wants to keep the bill alive. This wasn’t one of those deals.

When the cell phone bill got to the Senate May 1, Sen. MIKE JACOBS, D-East Moline, grabbed it. It hasn’t been seen since. Jacobs’ father is former state Sen. DENNY JACOBS, now a lobbyist for phone giant AT&T.

“He had nothing to do with (the cell phone) bill,” Mike Jacobs said last week. “Just because he tells me things doesn’t mean I listen to him. We don’t do things to benefit ourselves.”

Jacobs said his father did not represent AT&T’s cell phone division when Mendoza’s bill passed.

“It was a bad bill,” Jacobs said. “Most phone companies don’t produce phones. She wanted to punish a carrier for a phone not working. If your car doesn’t start three times, can you take it back and say you’re not going to pay anymore?”

Mendoza said she found Jacobs’ action “really inappropriate. This is wrong, and it shouldn’t happen.”

That’s why she introduced the bill about lawmakers with lobbyist relatives. It’s sitting on the House floor waiting for a vote. Mendoza thinks it will easily pass.

If it does, maybe Jacobs can sponsor it in the Senate.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.